Minutes for Southport Area Committee meeting, Nov 18 2009, 6.30PM official page

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brodie-Browne, Glover, McGuire and Sir Ron Watson and Local Advisory Group Members Mrs. M. Pointon and Mr. S. Sugden.

Members and Officers are requested to give notice of any personal or prejudicial interest and the nature of that interest, relating to any item on the agenda in accordance with the relevant Code of Conduct.

The following declaration of interest was received:

Member

Minute

Reason

Action

Councillor Weavers

97 - Southport Cycle Town, East-West Link Proposals - Results of Consultation

Personal – (i) owns 2 businesses in the area; and (ii) Chair of the Sefton Cycle Forum

Stayed in the room, took no part in the consideration of the item and voted thereon

Members of the public are invited to ask questions, raise matters, or present petitions on issues which are relevant to the Southport Cycle Town - East West Link Proposals.  The person asking a question will be allowed one supplementary question and, provided the questioner is present or represented, any interested members of the public will be permitted to ask supplementary questions, provided the total time on each issue does not exceed five minutes.

(If the questioner does not attend the meeting or nominate a representative to attend (at the discretion of the Chair), the question will not be read out, but a written response will be forwarded to the questioner.  If a response to a question is required which cannot be provided at the meeting or if the question is not reached within the 1 hour period, the Chair will either refer the matter to the appropriate Service Department for a written answer or to the appropriate Cabinet Member for further consideration).

During the Open Forum the following questions/comments/petitions were submitted.

(a)      Mr. L. Price submitted a petition signed by 69 residents of Cedar Street, Southport in the following terms:

“We, the undersigned residents of Cedar Street, see the need for traffic calming measures along our road.  However, we strongly object to speed bumps which will cause structural damage to our homes and spoil the appearance of this Victorian street.”

Mr. Price addressed the Committee in support of the terms of the residents’ petition.

(b)      Mr. S. Beesley submitted a petition signed by 1590 local residents in the following terms:

“Petition against the closure of Portland Street at junction of Cemetery Road.”

Mr. Beesley addressed the Committee in support of the terms of the residents’ petition.

(c)      Mr. Ryder submitted a petition signed by 46 local residents in the following terms:

“Petition against the Portland Street proposal including the closure of junctions and new speed bumps.”

Mr. Ryder was not present to address the Committee in support of the terms of the residents’ petition.

(d)      Mr. D. and Mrs. C. Smith asked in connection with the Portland Street Cycle Scheme:

(i)       would Sefton Council have the resources to re-surface the road and maintain all the alterations over the next 3 years;

(ii)      what did the Council plan to do with the 2800 cars per day that used the full length of Portland Street and not increase their green house gases; and

(iii)          Portland Street was the wrong road to have been chosen so why?

Mr. D. Marrin, Traffic Services Manager, provided the following answers:

(i)          Portland Street would be resurfaced between Linaker Street and the railway as part of the scheme; and that ongoing maintenance of the scheme would be dealt with through normal highway maintenance;

(ii)      only 7.7% of vehicles (216) per day travelled the full length of the road.  By driving at a steady speed green house gas emissions would not increase; and

(iii)          Portland Street was the most direct route between the seafront/town centre and development areas to the west.  It was the quietest road when compared to alternative routes such as Scarisbrick New Road/Eastbank Street/Duke Street.

(e)      Mr. P. Miller asked when were the last traffic counts undertaken for the full length of Portland Street, Duke Street (full length) and Cemetery Road between Ash Street traffic lights and Warwick Street.  Mr. Miller also asked when was a traffic count undertaken for Town Lane from Bentham Way to Southbank Road/Cemetery Road.

Mr. P. Hillsdon, Senior Assistant Transport Policy Officer, indicated that counts of vehicles were undertaken on Portland Street and Duke Street at the railway line in March each year.  Additional counts were undertaken on Portland Street, Duke Street and Southbank Road in January 2009.

(f)       Mr. G. Petrie raised the strongest objection to the Portland Street proposal.  He indicated that not only did he see the scheme as totally against the wishes of the residents of the area, he saw it as a total disruption to the flow of traffic of the 2000 to 3000 vehicles which used this very busy road as a passageway in and out of town every day.  He continued that this flow of traffic brought untold business to the local community and that the Council was in danger of putting the small local trader out of business; that not only was it an unnecessary closure but that all it would do was to push this huge volume of traffic onto already overloaded roads, i.e. Eastbank Street and Duke Street, in turn creating more air pollution in those areas and the risk of more accidents due to increased traffic movements on those particular roads.

Mr. Petrie concluded by asking that if support was not gained to close Portland Street, would the Council lose the funding for the cycle route; why was it so important to close such an important arterial road that served the town so well; elected Members to consider the implications of such a closure and to not support the proposal.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director be requested to provide Mr. Petrie with a written response.

(g)      Mr. T. Crabtree asked in connection with the closure of Portland Street which alternative routes, instead of Portland Street, had been considered and why were they rejected.

Mr. D. Marrin, Traffic Services Manager indicated that Portland Street had been chosen as it was the most direct route between the seafront/town centre and development areas to the west.  It was the quietest road when compared to alternatives such as Scarisbrick New Road, Eastbank Street or Duke Street.

(h)      Mr. D. Graham indicated that he had already voted no to the Portland Street plan, together with almost 70% of respondents; and indicated that Plan B introduced a new feature on all side roads i.e. a gateway to the 20 mph zone.  He continued that the section of Linaker Street in which he lived had two companies that had daily deliveries and removals by 3, 4, 5 and even, last week, 6 axle H.G.V.s.

Mr. Graham concluded by asking:

(i)       would their vehicles be able to pass through the gateways at the same time as cars;

(ii)      would the gateways be far enough into the street to allow the complete vehicle to enter the street before being held up by a vehicle leaving the zone through the gateway; and

(iii)      did the Council agree that a gateway at the junction would leave H.G.V. drivers stranded across Duke Street.

Mr. D. Marrin, Traffic Services Manager, provided the following answers:

(i)       two cars would be able to pass through the gateways at the same time, but a car and a H.G.V. would not;

(ii)      the gateway would be set far enough into the street to allow a H.G.V. to wait to pass; and

(iii)          H.G.V.’s should not queue across junctions.

(i)       Mr. D. Heaven indicated that the Portland Street traffic calming scheme with safer cycle and pedestrian usage would be very much appreciated.

(j)       Mr. J. Grundy asked which Councillors voted for the decisions of 7 January 2009 and 2 September 2009 approving the Portland Street proposals for public consultation, and within those voting for those decisions, who had read the reports they were voting on.  He also asked for confirmation that all three named officers on the front of tonight's report had read and approved it.

Mr. P. Fraser, Committee Administrator, advised that votes of Councillors were not recorded in Area Committee meetings.  On occasions however, some Members who disagreed with a decision taken requested that their dissent to the decision be recorded; and that the Committee Administrator servicing the meeting would record such dissent in the minute.

At the meetings held on 7 January and 2 September 2009, no such dissents were recorded and therefore, it was not possible to indicate how individual Members voted on the proposals.

Mr. D. Marrin, Traffic Services Manager, confirmed that the three officers named on the front page of the report had indeed read the report.

(k)      Mr. J. Scale indicated that he was a frequent cycle user and commented that he supported the Portland Street cycle friendly scheme.  He continued that he was well aware of the dangers to cyclists from careless car drivers having suffered serious injury in the past.  He concluded that safer cycling meant more cyclists hence less pollution.

(l)       Mrs. L. Proctor implored the Committee not to abandon the Portland Street cycle scheme and indicated that she had never before lived in a street that was so dangerous.  She complained about speeding and risk-taking drivers of lorries, transit vans and domestic vehicles; that drivers failed to stop at the crossing on Cemetery Road; and that there seemed to be a general fool hardiness regarding driving in the area.  She concluded by asking the Committee to take into account the feelings of local residents in Portland Street and not just those of shopkeepers.

(m)     Mrs. Owen wished to make it known that she supported the proposed changes to Portland Street to make it cycle friendly.  She indicated that she was in favour of the scheme as it would encourage people to use bicycles, a green form of transport; and that there was a school on Portland Street and that it would make it a lot safer for children if the speed limit was reduced.

(n)      Mr. A. Lough asked that if the Cycle England funding was declined, was the £150,000 Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding sufficient to fund the Newlands extension and to create a cycle crossing at Cemetery Road.

Mr. D. Marrin, Traffic Services Manager indicated that funding was available within the LTP to fund the safety issues referred to at Cemetery Road but not the Newlands extension.

Report of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director

Further to Minute No. 54 of 2 September, 2009, the Committee considered the report of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director advising of the results of the consultation exercise undertaken on the proposed east-west cycle link along Portland Street and associated traffic calming measures; and proposing a way forward with the scheme.

The report indicated that the aim of the east-west link was to deliver a 3km long east/west link across the town, linking the Business Park, Hospital and housing in Kew to the Town Centre and Seafront; that the route would include cycle routes to be developed through the expansion of the business park, paths across the Newlands Country Park currently being developed by the Forestry Commission and a link between Newlands and the Town Centre/Seafront; that between Newlands and the Town Centre, it was proposed to develop a route along one of the east/west running streets, through the reduction of traffic speeds and volumes within a 20mph zone to link the east of the town to the Town Centre, with crossing facilities of the major roads along the route; and that Portland Street had been identified as the most appropriate link to use for the route as it gave the most direct route.

The report detailed:

(a)      the preliminary consultation exercise undertaken in February/March 2009; the original scheme proposal; and the most recent consultation undertaken between mid September and 9 October 2009.  Three drop in sessions were held and 2334 questionnaires were distributed to local residents; 637 were returned, a response rate of 28.8% which was average for a consultation of this nature; that the questionnaire asked respondents if they “were in favour of the proposed cycle route and associated measures”; and that 454 (67.5%) responded that they were not in favour whilst 219 (32.5%) indicated that they were.  Comments were also sought on the proposals and these were detailed in Annex F attached to the report;

(b)      the response of the Planning and Economic Regeneration Director to the following comments raised as part of the process:

·       Humps not needed

·       Will put more traffic on Duke Street/Eastbank Street/Southbank Road

·       Would affect businesses

·       Don’t close at Cemetery Road

·       More traffic will be forced onto side roads

·       Loss of Parking

·       Put signals at Cemetery Road

·       Good Scheme

·       Closure not needed between Talbot Street/Part Street;

(c)      that the funding for the scheme was principally from Cycling England with a small amount being targeted from the Local Transport Plan to deal with road safety issues as follows:

          2009/10          £220,000 Cycling England

          2010/11          £390,000 Cycling England

          2010/11          £150,000 Local Transport Plan

          and that Cycling England would only be prepared to finally authorise the funding if the scheme delivered significant improvements for cyclists through reducing vehicle volumes and speeds;

(d)      that Notice had also been taken of the many comments raised during the consultation regarding objections to certain parts of the schemes and a compromise scheme was now proposed.

          Paragraph 8.1 of the report provided a summary of the revised proposals relating to:

·       20 mph zone between Duke Street and Eastbank Street/Southbank Road including Portland Street

·       Entry treatment (narrowing at each side road entry point) at each entrance to 20mph zone

·       Speed tables at the mid points on the longer lengths of road

·       Speed tables on Portland Street at each side road junction

·       Tree planting on Portland Street

·       Mini roundabout on speed table at junction of Portland Street/Shakespeare Street

·       Traffic signals (no road closures) at junction of Portland Street with Cemetery Road

·       Toucan Crossing Lord Street at its junction with Portland Street (existing vehicle movements to be maintained)

·       Closure of Portland Street between Talbot Street and Part Street to all vehicles except cycles

·       Resurfacing of Portland Street between Linaker Street and Railway Line;

(e)      that Officers had discussed the original proposals and the consultation responses with Cycling England; that Cycling England had expressed particular concerns that the scheme would do little to reduce traffic volumes and the provision of signals at the junction of Portland Street and Cemetery Road could actually lead to higher traffic volume.  Consequently, it had been confirmed by Cycling England that they would be “highly unlikely” to confirm the funding for the scheme unless at least one closure of Portland Street was retained.  This would result in the loss of the £220,000 funding for 2009/10 and potentially the £390,000 for 2010/11 allocated to the East/West link.  This funding would be lost from the Cycle Town Programme and Sefton, and would be reallocated to other towns to assist their delivery programme.  Officers were also concerned that the failure to deliver this scheme could have serious consequences for future funding from Cycling England towards the Southport Cycling Town; and that there were no other sources of alternative funding for the scheme if Cycling England withdrew their funding.

The report concluded by indicating that in accordance with delegations approved within the Council’s Constitution and the protocol agreed with Cabinet Member - Technical Services and Area Committee Chairs in Spring 2002 for the progression of Capital Schemes, with regard to this proposal the Area Committee could:

·       approve the scheme as proposed above;

·       approve the scheme with minor amendments; or

·       refer the scheme to the Cabinet Member - Technical Services, indicating the Area Committees’ view on how the proposal should be progressed.

RESOLVED:               That

(1)      the following be approved as the East-West Cycle Link proposals:

          (i)       traffic signals (no road closures) at the junction of Portland Street with Cemetery Road, be progressed immediately;

          (ii)      the introduction and enforcement of a 20 mph zone between Duke Street/Soutbank Road including Portland Street;

          (iii)      the introduction of speed tables at mid points on the longer lengths of road and on Portland Street at each side road junction;

          (iv)      no road closures to be introduced;

          (v)      no speed humps/bumps to be introduced;

          (vi)      all Southport Councillors to have a closer involvement in the new proposals; and

          (vii)     local residents being consulted regarding the revised proposals and details so that their views are fully informed; and

(2)          Officers be authorised to undertake the necessary legal procedures, including those of public consultation and advertising the Council’s intention to implement the Order(s) required for the introduction of the speed tables.

In accordance with the agreed programme of meetings for this Area Committee, the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 at the Town Hall, Lord Street, Southport, commencing at 6.30p.m.

RESOLVED:

That the next meeting be held on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 at the Town Hall, Lord Street, Southport, commencing at 6.30 pm